The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of state group life insurance premiums retroactive to the date she became disabled and continuing through the date of approval of a waiver of premium based on disability.
Findings Of Fact During her entire career with the State, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC). At all times material, DOC, like all State governmental agencies, had its own personnel office. At all times material, the Division of Retirement (Retirement) handled all governmental agencies’ employees’ retirement issues. At all times material, the State has provided its employees, including Petitioner at DOC, with various types of insurance through Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS), Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI), the Respondent herein. For more than 20 years, ending January 1, 2007, the State of Florida provided state officials, employees and retirees basic life insurance coverage through Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). Although Petitioner retired on full disability in mid- 2000, at all times relevant to these proceedings, Petitioner has continuously participated in the State Group Insurance Program’s (Program’s), life insurance plan (Plan). The Program is authorized by Section 110.123, Florida Statutes. Because of enhanced benefits, employees were required to complete a new life insurance enrollment form during “open enrollment,” conducted in 1999, for coverage beginning January 1, 2000. Petitioner completed the life insurance enrollment form and dated it "10/04/99." Directly below Petitioner's signature on this enrollment form, the following statement appears: Waiver of Premium for Disability If you are totally disabled for a continuous 9 months and are less than 60 years of age at the time disability begins, Prudential will continue your coverage with no premium due, provided you report your disability within 12 months of its start and submit any required proof to Prudential. The second page, last paragraph of the 1999, enrollment form provided an address and a toll-free telephone number for Prudential, and advised participants that the form was intended to provide a summary of benefits, as more completely set out in the certificate. Petitioner produced the enrollment form in response to Respondent's request for production of documents. She identified her signature thereon at hearing, and had the enrollment form admitted in evidence as Exhibit P-1. She also admits in her Proposed Recommended Order that she signed it. Although her testimony waffled in some respects, on the whole, she testified to the effect that she had retained a copy of this form where she had access to it at all times material. She is, therefore, found to have had knowledge of its contents since 1999. Petitioner testified that she never received either a life insurance policy nor a certificate of insurance, from Prudential or from any entity of Florida State Government, and that neither her DOC Personnel Office, Retirement, Florida First,1/ or DMS/DSGI advised her at the time of her retirement in mid-2000, that she could apply to Prudential for a life insurance premium waiver. However, Petitioner also had admitted in evidence as Exhibit P-2, a “Continuation/Termination Form” which she signed on “4-11-00,” stating a retirement date of “3- 10-00.” That form specifies that “. . . the amount of life insurance shall be $10,000 . . .” with a footnote reading, “This [referring to the $10,000, amount] would only apply if Waiver of Premium is not approved.” (Bracketed material supplied.) Also, the credible testimony of Respondent’s witnesses and of exhibits in evidence show that a complete certificate of life insurance was mailed to Petitioner in a timely manner. There is no proof that the insurance certificate varied the substance of the enrollment form as quoted in Finding of Fact 7. Indeed, the certificate provided, in pertinent part: The Policyholder will continue the full premium for continuance of insurance in accordance with item 8 above, [referring to “Total disability commencing before age 60— Unlimited for Employee Term Life Insurance”] provided the employee furnishes written proof of such total disability when and as required by the Policyholder. * * * Period of Extension Protection for a Disabled Employee— one year after receipt by Prudential’s Home Office of written proof that his total disability has existed continuously for at least nine months, provided the employee furnishes such proof no later than one year after the later of (1) the date premium payments for the employee’s insurance under the Group Policy are discontinued or (2) the cessation of any extended death benefit under the provisions for “Extended Death Benefit for Total Disability” above, and successive periods of one year each after the year of extension under (1), provided the employee furnishes written proof of the continuance of the employee’s total disability when and as required by Prudential once each year. Only employees disabled before retirement and under 60 years of age were eligible for the premium waiver. Employees who became disabled during retirement were not eligible for the waiver. By the terms of her enrollment form and certificate, if Petitioner did not notify Prudential before the twelfth month, she could not receive the waiver. When, precisely, Petitioner became “totally disabled” for purposes of her State life insurance certificate’s definition is debatable, because for some time prior to her actual retirement date, she was working off and on while pursuing a “permanent total disability” determination, pursuant to the definition of that term as expressed in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, The Florida Workers’ Compensation Law. Petitioner ultimately received the workers’ compensation ruling she sought, possibly before March 10, 2000. Petitioner’s last day of work was March 10, 2000, when, she testified, a superior had her forcibly removed from DOC property. Despite her assertion that she was not approved for in-line-of-duty retirement until September 1, 2000, Petitioner also testified that the State granted her retirement upon disability, effective April 1, 2000, and April 1, 2000, is the date put forth by Respondent as Petitioner's disability retirement date, as well. Upon that concurrence, it is found that Petitioner qualified for total disability for State life insurance purposes before retirement and that she qualified for the waiver by age at retirement. When Petitioner retired on disability in 2000, employees of both DOC and of Retirement knew that she was retiring on disability. Retirement provided Petitioner with printed materials referring her to the insurance company and/or DMS/DSGI for insurance questions and stating that Retirement did not administer any insurance programs. There is no evidence Petitioner asked anyone about the waiver in 2000. From her retirement date in mid-2000, until Prudential ultimately granted her a premium waiver in 2007, Petitioner paid the full life insurance premiums to the State Life Trust, either via deduction from her retirement or directly by her own check. From the date of her retirement through December 2006, Petitioner paid $4.20, per month for life insurance, and beginning January 1, 2007, through November 2007, she paid $35.79, per month. According to Petitioner, she only became aware of the availability of the potential waiver of premiums when she received a booklet during open enrollment in October 2007, advising her that beginning January 1, 2008, the State life insurance coverage would be provided through Minnesota Life Insurance. The specific language that caught her eye was: No premium to pay if you become disabled --- If you become totally disabled or as defined in your policy, premiums are waived. Petitioner conceded that there is no substantive difference between the foregoing instruction and the statement on her 1999, enrollment form for Prudential. (See Finding of Fact 7.) Petitioner applied for the Minnesota life insurance, with premium waiver, triggering a series of bureaucratic decisions that maintained her continuous life insurance coverage by Prudential and permitted Petitioner to apply to Prudential for waiver of the life insurance premium as described in her 1999, enrollment form. Although bureaucratic delays occurred through DOC’s personnel office, Prudential accepted Petitioner’s proof of age, disability, etc., and granted the waiver of premiums based on disability. The monthly premiums of $35.79, that Petitioner paid in October and November 2007, were retroactively reimbursed to her by the State, based upon Prudential's receipt of Petitioner's waiver package on October 3, 2007. Beginning in December 2007, Prudential activated the waiver of premium, so that Petitioner has not had to pay any premium since. Adrienne Bowen, a DSGI manager of Prudential contracts for twenty years, testified that, in 1999-2000, Prudential’s waiver did not apply until after nine months of continuous disability and after the participant had reported the disability to Prudential, and after Prudential had approved the waiver of premiums. She further testified that she believed that there was no provision for the waiver to apply retroactively. For this testimony, Ms. Bowen relied upon Exhibit R-11, a “Group Life Administration Manual,” which had been devised so that the State life insurance plan would be consistently administered. On the foregoing issues, The Group Life Administration Manual states, in pertinent part: WAIVER OF PREMIUM When an employee becomes disabled and is unable to work because of a disability, the employee may be eligible to extend the group life coverage without premium payments. In order to extend coverage, the employee must submit proof of disability within the period shown on the Group Contract (generally at least 9 months but less than 12 months after the total disability starts). If the proof is accepted, you may stop the premium on behalf of the employee’s group coverage. We recommend that premium payments continue for that employee until a decision is made regarding the claim. (Emphasis in original.) However, Ms. Bowen also testified that DSGI and Prudential now allow an insured to request the waiver at any time after nine months of continuous disability, without automatic denial if the employee’s first request is not made within 12 months after she first becomes disabled. This was done in Petitioner's situation in 2007. Prudential did not refuse to waive premiums because Petitioner’s application was not made within 12 months of total disability. However, the premiums refunded related back only to the first day of the month in which she made application for waiver. Petitioner seeks a reimbursement for overpayment of premiums from April 1, 2000, to September 30, 2007. Her first request to Respondent for an administrative hearing appears to have been made on or about May 12, 2008. After several levels of internal agency “appeals,” the cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about August 28, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order which calculates the State group life insurance premiums Petitioner paid between May 12, 2006, and October 1, 2007, and orders payment to Petitioner of that amount within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2008.
The Issue Did Mr. Carter violate sections 627.4554(4)(a), 627.4554(4)(c)2., 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2006, 2009, 2010); section 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2006, 2010); sections 626.9541(1)(k)2., 626.9541(1)(l), and 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2009, 2010); section 626.621(9), Florida Statutes (2010); and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-215.210? If so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Legislature has vested the Department with the authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. § 20.121(2)(g) and (h)1.d., Fla. Stat. (2011). At all times material to his proceeding, Mr. Carter was licensed by the Department as a Florida life (including variable annuity) agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life insurance agent (2-16) and life and health agent (2-18). He has been appointed as an agent for several different life insurance companies, including Allianz, EquiTrust and Great American, but not RiverSource. Counts I through V--W.K. and J.K. 2006, J.K. and W.K., and the MasterDex 10 J.K. was born in 1937 in Madrid Spain, where she finished high school. Spanish is J.K.'s native tongue. She cannot write in English and does not speak or understand English well. When J.K. was 17, she met W.K., a member of the United States' armed services. They married in Spain. Six months after the marriage, the newlyweds moved to Brooklyn, New York, W.K.'s home. They later relocated to Florida. W. K. constructed a mall in New Port Richey containing 18 stores that included a restaurant and a frame shop. J.K. ran the frame shop. Wal-Mart eventually bought the mall. By 2006, J.K. and W.K. had accumulated approximately two million dollars in brokerage investments. Until the decline of his health and mental faculties in 2008, W.K. handled all financial matters for the couple. J.K. did not understand them or have any interest in them. In 2006, J.K. and W.K. met Mr. Carter, who began marketing annuities to them. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact, combined with the fact that W.K. had died several years before the hearing, limit the ability to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to J.K. and W.K. or what information or instructions they gave him. On July 25, 2006, W.K. applied for a MasterDex 10 annuity policy from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. He paid an initial premium of $603,470.34 for the policy. W.K. was 73 years old at the time. W.K. obtained the money to fund the policy from the couple's Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Carter knew this. As part of the annuity application process, Mr. Carter submitted an Allianz "Product Suitability Form" for W.K. Completion of the form is a prerequisite to processing the application and issuing the policy. The stated purpose of the form is "to confirm that your [the applicant's] annuity purchase suits your current financial situation and long-term goals." The form, signed by W.K. and Mr. Carter, stated that an annuity was the source of the funds for payment of the annuity's premium. This statement was not accurate. Mr. Carter knew that it was not accurate. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a willful deception by Mr. Carter with regard to the policy. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a dishonest practice in his conduct of the business of insurance. The suitability form also indicated that W.K. expected the annuity to provide him a steady stream of income in six to nine years. Allianz accepted the application and issued the policy. Mr. Carter received a commission of $66,381.73. The MasterDex 10 is a complex financial product with many difficult to understand restrictions, conditions, interest options, bonuses, penalties, and limitations. The MasterDex 10 that W.K. and J.K. purchased paid interest linked to the performance of the Standard and Poors 500 stock market index. It also guaranteed interest of at least one percent. A "Nursing Home Benefit" was one of the options the MasterDex 10 provided. The "benefit" permitted the policy holder to receive payments of the full "annuitization" value of the policy over a period of five years or more if the holder was confined to a nursing home for 30 out of 35 consecutive days. The "annuitization value" is the maximum value that the policy can reach. It is the total of all payments that would be made to the holder if he either (1) let the premium and interest earned accumulate for a minimum of five contract years and then took ten years of interest only payments, followed by a lump sum payment of the annuitization value or (2) equal payments of principal and interest over ten or more years. Policy holders could make additional premium payments to increase the policy value. The policy also permitted limited withdrawals without penalty. After holding the policy for 12 months after the most recent premium payment, a holder could, without penalty, withdraw up to ten percent of the premium paid once a year until a maximum of 50 percent of the premium had been withdrawn. This meant that after one year passed, W.K. could make five annual withdrawals of $60,347.03. The policy also provided for loans on the annuity. In the years following this transaction, Mr. Carter maintained contact with W.K. and J.K. by periodically asking them to join him at a restaurant for lunch. Decline of W.K.'s Health While visiting his mother in Greece in 2008, W.K. fell and hit his head. Afterwards his health declined. On June 3, 2008, W.K. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and determined to be unable to make sound financial and medical decisions. From June 2008, forward, J.K. was very worried about W.K.'s health, caring for him, and making him as comfortable as possible. On November 5, 2008, W.K., at Mr. Carter's suggestion, executed a Durable Power of Attorney, prepared for her by a lawyer, giving J.K. broad authority to act on his behalf in financial matters. At some point, W.K. was admitted to the Bear Creek Skilled Nursing Center and resided there for a period of time. On April 4, 2010, he was discharged from Bear Creek. W.K. resided in Bear Creek for a period of time. Although there is some hearsay evidence about when W.K. entered Bear Creek, the evidence does not corroborate direct evidence or hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection in circuit court, sufficient to prove when W.K. entered Bear Creek. Consequently, the evidence does not establish the length of time that W.K. spent in the facility and does not establish that W.K. would have been eligible for the "Nursing Home Benefit" described in paragraph 16. After W.K. returned home in April, J.K. engaged an enterprise called "Granny Nannies" to provide caretakers at home. The services cost approximately $12,000 per month. During this period J.K.'s health also declined markedly. Among other things, she had appendicitis and breast cancer. Treatment of the cancer required chemotherapy, which left her in pain and exhausted. During this time Mr. Carter obtained a copy of the power of attorney executed by W.K. in favor of J.K. On June 18, 2010, the court appointed Paula Rego as guardian for W.K and J.K. with authority to act on their behalf in all matters affecting property rights. On November 26, 2010, W.K. died in hospice care after a short hospital stay. The Events of 2010 In December 2009, J.K. met with insurance sales agents and sisters Kimberly Trotter and Chandra Valdez. J.K. had responded to a mail solicitation by them. During the meeting, J.K. and Mss. Trotter and Valdez realized that J.K. knew them because J.K. and W.K. had rented space to the sisters' parents. Capitalizing on the connection and J.K.'s concerns about paying the monthly costs of care for W.K., Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez began providing financial advice and marketing annuity products that they sold. They advocated liquidating W.K.'s and J.K.'s existing annuities, including the MasterDex 10. In December 2009, Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez sold W.K. and J.K. two annuities with Great American for approximately $661,098. On January 28, 2010, W.K. authorized J.K. and Ms. Trotter to access policy information. In January 2010, Ms. Trotter attempted to liquidate the MasterDex 10 policy and transfer the funds to Great American. Allianz notified Mr. Carter of this in February 2010. He intervened to stop the transfer. On March 3, 2010, Allianz received another request to liquidate the MasterDex 10 from J.K. Allianz sent her what it calls a "conservation letter." The purpose of the letter is to "conserve" the business with the company. The letter also identified needed information, including a copy of J.K.'s power of attorney for W.K. On March 4, 2010, Allianz notified Mr. Carter of the liquidation request. He contacted J.K. and began a successful effort to obtain a letter asking to reverse the liquidation. On March 17, 2010, Ms. Trotter or Ms. Valdez again convinced J.K. to liquidate the MasterDex 10 funds and transfer them to Great American. Again Mr. Carter acted to stop the liquidation. On March 23, 2010, J.K. signed a letter written by Mr. Carter asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to RiverSource, a company that issued another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was. She only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. On March 26, 2010, J.K. submitted a liquidation request form for the MasterDex 10 signing it on behalf of herself and W.K. J.K. submitted the request at the urging of Ms. Trotter and/or Ms. Valdez. Allianz received the request on March 31, 2010. It began processing the full liquidation of the annuity policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent Allianz a letter saying that J.K. did not want to liquidate W.K.'s MasterDex 10 policy. The letter claimed that this was the second time that competing agents had tried to cancel the policy. Allianz reinstated the policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent a handwritten letter to Great American stating that J.K. did not want the MasterDex 10 policy canceled. The letter refers to having previously provided the power of attorney. Mr. Carter signed the letter. J.K. signed the letter on behalf of W.K. and herself. On April 7, 2010, Great American received a typewritten letter addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" stating that J.K. and W.K. wanted to transfer their funds to Great American since "December and January" and that J.K. did not see Mr. Carter on April 1 and did not sign a letter that he sent. On April 9, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote and sent a letter, signed by J.K. at his request, asking Great American to cancel the policies sold by Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez and waive all surrender charges. The letter states that J.K. is fighting cancer and that the agents forced her to sign the policy documents. Mr. Carter included with the letter a Withdrawal/Surrender Request Form completed by him and signed by J.K. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote a letter to Allianz stating that J.K. needed more than ten percent of the value of the MasterDex 10 policy (the penalty-free withdrawal permitted) to provide the funds needed to take care of W.K. The letter states that W.K. and J.K. wished to change ownership of the policy to J.K. only and then to fully surrender the policy. Mr. Carter's letter is signed by J.K. on her behalf and on behalf of W.K. Mr. Carter enclosed forms with the same date, which he prepared for J.K.'s signature, requesting the change of ownership and liquidation. Allianz sent J.K. a letter, with a copy to Mr. Carter, on April 29, 2010, identifying alternatives to liquidating MasterDex 10 for getting the money needed to care for W.K. The Allianz letter also disclosed that liquidating the policy would result in a substantial loss of money. In part, the letter stated: We understand you wish to surrender your annuity policy. As we review your request, we want to be certain you are aware of all the alternatives that are available to you. This information can help you make an informed decision based on your best financial interests. It is possible for you to access a portion of your policy's value while your policy remains in deferral. This would allow its value to continue to grow tax-deferred, and still provide the cash you need. Your annuity may permit you to take a free withdrawal, policy loan, or partial surrender. Finally, it's important to realize exactly how much you will be giving up should you decide to fully surrender your policy. Your policy's current Accumulation Value is $751,566.07 and its Surrender Value is $585,014.49. By surrendering your policy now, you are giving up the difference between these two values [$166,551.58]. Any one of these options could provide you with needed cash while allowing you to receive your full accumulation value in cash after your policy's 10-year surrender charge period. The letter provided a ten-day period, called a conservation period, during which J.K. could withdraw her request to liquidate the policy. Mr. Carter called Allianz on April 30, 2010, and spoke to Amber Hendrickson. In the recording of the conversation, Mr. Carter sounds agitated and speaks forcefully. J.K. participated in the telephone call. She is quiet and deferential. In the call, J.K. waives the ten-day "conservation" period. Mr. Carter insists that Allianz process the surrender swiftly. Allianz processed the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 on April 30, 2010. It wired funds from the liquidated annuity to J.K.'s Regions Bank account the same day. On April 30, 2010, J.K. signed a check for $475,000 to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company to purchase an annuity. Mr. Carter wrote the check. Also on April 30, 2010, J.K. signed an EquiTrust annuity application completed by Mr. Carter. The form indicates that the policy is not replacing an existing annuity contract. This is not an accurate representation. On April 30, 2010, Mr. Carter also completed an Annuity Suitability Questionnaire for J.K. to sign and submit with the EquiTrust application. He indicated that J.K. had income from a pension. Mr. Carter knew that this was not accurate. Mr. Carter also indicated that J.K.'s income was adequate to cover all expenses, including medical. He knew this was not accurate because he was fully aware of the cost of W.K.'s caregivers and J.K.'s concern about them. The form, as completed by Mr. Carter, is misleading about the source of the funds for purchase of the annuity. He made the technically correct representation that the funds come from a checking account. But the funds were from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 and were placed in the checking account the same day the application was completed. The funds were actually from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. The form also stated that the proposed annuity would not replace any product. Mr. Carter knew this was not accurate also. He knew that the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10, albeit in a lower amount, because J.K. kept some cash and lost a good deal of money in surrender costs. A letter Mr. Carter sent to EquiTrust on August 16, 2010, when it was investigating complaints about J.K.'s purchase of the annuity, demonstrates that he knew the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter's letter described the surrender and purchase this way: "An amount of $475,000 was placed into the EquiTrust Annuity (Market Power Bonus Index's Fixed account), the remaining balance of $110,038.75 was sent to her checking account, plus two other accounts valued at $50,000 that were closed, and a Jefferson National check that wasn't cashed for $3,500." Also, on April 23, 2010, J.K. signed, on behalf of herself and W.K., a Surrender/Withdrawal Request to RiverSource asking for the full withdrawal of the net accumulation value of their annuity contract with RiverSource. RiverSource sent J.K. a check for $26,430.07. It deducted $2,158.32 for a withdrawal charge and $295.98 for a "rider charge" from the full value of $28,884.37. On May 5, 2010, EquiTrust received J.K.'s policy application documents and check. EquiTrust required additional documents including a financial needs analysis form. Mr. Carter sought an exception to the requirement for a financial needs analysis form. He did not receive the exception. On May 6, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust the required financial needs analysis form. He completed the form for J.K., who was 72 at the time. J.K. also signed this form. The form repeats some of the incorrect statements of the previous forms. It is also includes additional incorrect statements. The instructions for the section about "Replacements" states, "complete if an existing life insurance policy or annuity contract will be used to fund this product." Mr. Carter checked "no" as the response to the question: "Is the agent assisting you with this annuity purchase the same agent on the life insurance policy or annuity contract being replaced?" This indicates he is aware that the policy replaces the MasterDex 10. The response was also a representation that he knew to be false, because he was the agent on the policy being replaced. Mr. Carter also indicated on the needs analysis form that the source of funds for the EquiTrust annuity purchase was "Stocks/Bonds/Mutual Funds." Mr. Carter knew that this representation was not correct. It was also inconsistent with the statement on the suitability questionnaire that the funds came from a checking account. On May 18, 2010, J.K. signed a letter, written by Mr. Carter, asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to Genworth, a company holding another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. J.K. signed a letter, dated May 20, 2010, instructing EquiTrust to cancel the annuity she had with it. On May 23, 2010, Mr. Pearson submitted a form, signed by J.K., using the power of attorney, asking Genworth to liquidate an annuity held for W.K. On May 26, 2010, EquiTrust received the request to cancel J.K.'s policy and advised Mr. Carter. On May 31, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust a letter saying that J.K. did not want to cancel and enclosed a letter he prepared, dated May 26, 2010, and signed by J.K. asking EquiTrust to withdraw the cancelation request. The letter also stated that an agent who provided her untruthful information initiated the request. On June 2, 2010, at Mr. Carter's urging, J.K. sent EquiTrust a letter saying she wanted to keep the EquiTrust policy. On June 2, 2010, Mr. Carter sent, by facsimile, a letter written by him and signed by J.K. asking Great American to make Peter Gotsis her annuity agent. J.K. did not know Peter Gotsis and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter asked her to. On June 29, 2010, EquiTrust received a check for an additional $90,302.19 premium for J.K.'s policy. In July 2010, with the assistance of employees at her bank and others, J.K. contacted an attorney. The attorney, Joan Hook, contacted Mr. Carter and the various companies with annuities. Due to the efforts of Ms. Hook, J.K.'s guardian, Ms. Rego, Ms. Karen Ortega of the Department, and others, the series of transactions were undone and J.K. returned to her position before the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. From December 2010 forward, it was clear to Mr. Carter or anyone else having regular dealings with J.K. that she is confused, uninformed about financial matters, compliant, reasoning poorly, and not capable of making sound decisions. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact combined with the fact that W.K. died several years before the hearing, makes it impossible to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to W.K. and J.K. and to determine what information or instructions they gave him. Much of the evidence related to Counts I through V is hearsay evidence that would not be admissible over objection in a civil action. In addition, there is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of W.K. and J.K., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the various products promoted by Mr. Carter or of the liquidation of the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the Allianz and the EquiTrust annuities. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz and EquiTrust. Count VI--G.D. and K.D. G.D. lives in New Port Richey, Florida, where she moved from New York about 40 years ago. She was born on January 17, 1935, and has a ninth-grade education. G.D. had worked as a courier. Her investment experience consists of funding certificates of deposit (CDs), placing money in a mutual fund, and purchasing a Transamerica annuity. She is frugal and a conservative investor. G.D. is married to K.D. who was born April 12, 1927. Both are retired. G.D. met Mr. Carter in January 2010, when she responded to a postcard that he sent suggesting that he could save her money on taxes on social security payments. At that time, G.D. was 75 years old and K.D. was 83. G.D. was and is in bad health due to having suffered four strokes. She had difficulty speaking to Mr. Carter during his sales presentations. G.D. and K.D. disclosed to Mr. Carter that their total monthly family income, including social security and K.D.'s pension income, was approximately $2,400.00. They also disclosed that their assets included approximately $325,000.00 in CDs held with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union. G.D. and K.D. each owned an annuity, one with Hartford and one with Transamerica, which they told Mr. Carter about. Together, the annuities had a value of approximately $85,000. G.D. and K.D. also had approximately $66,000 in a money market account. Mr. Carter convinced G.D. and K.D. to liquidate their CDs to purchase two Allianz annuities called a MasterDex 10 Plus. One required payment of a $38,219.39 premium. The other required payment of a $287,365.00 premium. The couple applied for the annuities for G.D., with K.D. as the beneficiary, because he was the older of the two. Mr. Carter completed the applications, which they signed. Part six of the applications is titled: "Replacement (this section must be completed)." It asks two questions. The first is: "Do you have existing life insurance or annuity contracts?" Mr. Carter checked "no" as an answer. This was not correct, and he knew it. The second question asks: "Will the annuity contract applied for replace or change existing contract or policies?" This Mr. Carter correctly answered "no." Section six also asks for the amount of coverage in force. Mr. Carter did not provide this information. Mr. Carter also completed the Florida Senior Consumer Suitability Form Questionnaire for G.D. and K.D., which they signed. The form accurately reflects the couple's net worth, liquid assets, and income. It reports correctly that they owned or had owned CDs, fixed annuities, and variable annuities. The completed form also accurately reflects the couple's desire for guaranteed income. The form discloses that the annuity must be owned a minimum of 15 years to receive its maximum value. The MasterDex 10 Plus annuity is a complicated financial product with a ten percent "bonus" that the buyer does not receive unless she holds the policy for 15 years. In fact, holding the policy for 15 years is the only way to get the full benefit of the policy. While money may be withdrawn earlier, that results in losses of the benefits and in some cases penalties. For instance, if a policy holder chooses to liquidate the policy, the value she receives is only 87.5 percent of the premium paid with one percent interest for the period held. These provisions have a substantial financial effect on the benefits of the annuity. For example, in the fifth year, the cash surrender value of the $38,219.49 premium policy is $36,027.00. About ten months after purchasing the annuities, G.D. and K.D. began having second thoughts about the purchase of the annuities. G.D. consulted with the financial advisor "Wayne" at her bank. G.D. later concluded that she had also misunderstood the interest rate. Mr. Carter had shown her sales material with the ten percent "bonus," which generated a high interest rate of 13.3 percent for one year. But G.D. did not understand that the interest rate only applied in one year, and the money was not immediately available. On November 17, 2010, G.D., with Wayne's help, composed a complaint letter to Allianz that summarized her complaints and requested that her premium payments be returned without fees. On November 28, 2010, Carter responded with a letter to Allianz defending his annuity sales. On December 17, 2010, Allianz's employee, Mary Lou Fleischacker, advised G.D. by letter that the "free look" period for cancelling the contracts had passed. But Fleischacker did request further information about the sales. By two letters dated January 10, 2011, Allianz advised G.D. that she would suffer over $80,000 in penalties if she canceled the contracts. G.D.'s efforts to terminate the annuities prompted Carter to come uninvited into G.D.'s home and insistently demand that G.D. telephone Allianz and cancel her attempt to rescind the contracts. He also asked her, without explanation, to wait one week before liquidating the policies. G.D. refused. Carter repeatedly telephoned G.D. and returned uninvited to the house several times making the same demand. G.D. refused to answer her door. Mr. Carter came to G.D.'s daughter's house uninvited one evening, told her that her mother was going to lose a lot of money, and revealed her mother's financial matters to her. Mr. Carter demanded that G.D.'s daughter deliver to her mother for signature a letter he wrote rescinding the liquidation requests. G.D.'s daughter agreed to get Carter to leave. G.D.'s daughter feared for her mother's safety because of Mr. Carter's harassing telephone calls to her and her mother. She urged her mother to call the police. G.D. called the police and a New Port Richey officer told Mr. Carter to cease the harassment, and then filed a report on January 13, 2011. Mr. Carter did not contact G.D. or her daughter after that. Eventually, with the assistance of Department Investigator Ortega, G.D. was able to obtain the return of her funds from Allianz. There is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of G.D. and K.D., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the liquidation of the CDs and purchase of the MasterDex 10 Plus annuities as promoted and sold by Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the MasterDex 10 Plus annuity. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz. Mr. Carter's repeated, persistent, and overbearing efforts to require G.D. to speak with him about the cancelation and withdraw it demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance. Count VII--G.B. G.B. was born on January 14, 1930. She has a high school education. G.B. worked at and retired from Lucent Technology wiring telephone boards. She receives a small pension. Her husband, K.B., managed their financial affairs before he died ten years ago. Before K.B.'s death, the couple maintained investment accounts with Schwab. After K.B.'s death, Schwab employee, Barry Tallman, recommended that G.B. seek financial advice from Christopher Trombetta, CPA. She did so. Mr. Carter and a colleague, Christopher Drew, met with G.B. on June 29, 2010. She was 70 years old, timid, and easily confused. G.B. had responded to a promotional postcard she received from them purporting that the law governing taxes on social security income had changed and that they could lower her taxes. Mr. Carter was the person who presented G.B. information and persuaded her to purchase an annuity in the course of a meeting that lasted one to two hours. The evidence does not permit a determination of what representations and information Mr. Carter presented in his sales meeting with G.B. Her memory of the meeting was not distinct. She was confused about the meeting and did not remember facts precisely or explicitly. Mr. Carter completed applications for EquiTrust annuity products. G.B. signed the applications. Mr. Carter also completed financial needs analyses. G.B. signed them also. A box that asks if the applicant is aware that the annuity may be "a long-term contract with substantial penalties for early withdrawal" was checked "yes." The form also accurately represented that the source of funds for the annuity premium was stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. The other representations in the form were accurate. Mr. Carter persuaded G.B. to purchase two EquiTrust Market Power Plus annuities. G.B. signed two EquiTrust annuity contracts ending with 29F (E-29F) and 30F (E-30F). The initial premium for E-29F was $458,832.71. The initial premium for E-30F was $118,870.34. Both annuities were designed to provide G.B. with income in 2036. The funds for the premium came from the liquidation of her stock brokerage account. Both contracts had 20 percent surrender charges for the first two years of ownership. G.B. could not have surrendered the contract with its full financial benefits without a penalty until she was 95 years old. Mr. Carter delivered the annuity contracts to G.B. on August 6, 2010. The contracts provided G.B. the right to cancel the annuity by returning it within 15 days of the date she received it. Soon afterwards, Barry Tallman notified G.B. that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated. Transamerica Agent William Pearson had liquidated the accounts to transfer the money for purchase of the EquiTrust annuities. She was surprised. G.B. grew concerned about the annuities and consulted Mr. Trombetta and a financial advisor named Judith Gregory on September 20, 2010. With their assistance, G.B. wrote a complaint letter to EquiTrust asserting that Mr. Carter had assured her, among other things, that the annuities would protect her money should she enter a nursing home. G.B. wanted to cancel the annuities and have her full premium returned. G.B.'s letter to EquiTrust said, "I do not want any calls or visits from the agent or the agent's office." Mr. Carter learned of the effort to cancel the annuities. On November 15, 2010, at Mr. Carter's suggestion, he and Mr. Drew returned to G.B.'s home uninvited and unannounced. Mr. Carter insisted on entering and speaking to G.B. Mr. Carter began loudly and forcefully arguing with G.B. She telephoned Mr. Trombetta and asked that he speak to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter yelled at Mr. Trombetta. Mr. Trombetta credibly describes part of the conversation as follows: And before I could barely get that out, Rick exploded on me. He snapped and he started cursing up and down. F'n me up one side and down the other. And "you don't F'n know what you are talking about. You don't care about this person. You don't f'n know what you are doing;" and this and that. When G.B. returned to the telephone to speak with Mr. Trombetta, he advised her to call the police if Mr. Carter did not leave her house within five minutes. Mr. Carter and Mr. Drew left. EquiTrust eventually returned over $600,000 to G.B. There is no expert testimony evaluating and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of G.B.'s life expectancy which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the two annuities Mr. Carter sold G.B. Mr. Carter's conduct, in his unannounced visit to G.B. to try to persuade her to change her plans to liquidate the annuities and his conversation with Mr. Trombetta, demonstrated a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order revoking the licenses of Richard Edward Carter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent, The Medical Escrow Society, Inc., violated Section 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the twenty-six counts of the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, on January 6, 2003; and If Respondent is found to have violated any of the twenty- six counts of the Administrative Complaint, whether any such violations were committed willfully or non-willfully.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the successor agency to the Department of Insurance, regulates the viatical industry operating in Florida pursuant to the section of the Insurance Code referred to as the Viatical Settlement Act, Part X, Chapter 626. Prior to enactment of the Viatical Settlement Act in 1996, Petitioner did not have jurisdiction to regulate viatical settlement transactions. Respondent is a Florida corporation which was and is licensed as a viatical settlement broker in Florida, as well as a number of other states. Respondent, on behalf of a viator and for a fee, commission, or other valuable consideration, offers or attempts to negotiate viatical settlement contracts between a viator resident, in this state or other states, and one or more viatical settlement providers, and did so at all times material hereto. Respondent is currently owned by Christopher Lane (Lane), who purchased the company from the prior owner in a transaction which was approved by Petitioner on November 6, 2001. Lane is the current president of Respondent. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Lane neither owned nor controlled Respondent. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Lane was an employee of Respondent, as a vice president who handled marketing and new client relations. Lane did not have any knowledge of the facts or circumstances giving rise to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Furthermore, under Lane's ownership and management, Respondent has adopted and filed with Petitioner an anti-fraud plan, pursuant to Section 626.99278, which was first enacted in 2000. In general, the business of viatical settlements involves the sale by a policyholder to an investor or group of investors of the policyholder's life insurance policy, prior to the policyholder's death, for an amount that is less than the face value of the policy. Viatical settlement transactions typically have been used by terminally ill individuals as a means to obtain cash prior to their death, which could be used for life-sustaining treatments or to relieve financial stress during their lifetime. Recently, viatical settlement transactions have also been marketed to elderly individuals who are healthy but may no longer need life insurance and who want to obtain money during their lifetime for any number of reasons, such as paying for health care. There are various categories of persons involved in a typical viatical settlement transaction. The policyholder who is selling a life insurance policy is referred to as a "viator." A viator is typically represented by a viatical settlement "broker" who represents the viator by obtaining quotes from potential purchasers of the viator's policy, called viatical settlement "providers." Viatical settlement providers, in turn, seek investors to fund the viatical settlement transactions. Viatical settlement brokers and providers are required to be licensed under the Viatical Settlement Act. As part of its duties under the Viatical Settlement Act, Petitioner issues licenses to viatical settlement brokers through its Bureau of Agents and Agencies. In each of the twenty-six counts of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner has alleged that Respondent possessed a copy of an insurance policy application form, which when compared to information submitted on Respondent's forms, demonstrates evidence of a fraudulent insurance act committed by the particular viator. In that respect, paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint states as follows: Information available to the Department reflects that Medical Escrow has, from offices located in this state, offered or attempted to negotiate viatical settlement contracts between viators and one or more viatical settlement providers in the presence of circumstances whereby Medical Escrow knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known or been caused to believe, that the underlying insurance policy had been procured through fraud, or dishonesty, or misrepresentations made by the viator on his application to the insurance company issuing the policy in question. Consequently, as a threshold matter Petitioner must prove that Respondent actually possessed the documents referenced in the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner's financial specialist, Janice S. Davis (Davis), testified that she obtained copies of the documents referenced in the twenty-six counts of the Administrative Complaint from a variety of sources as follows: (1) the documents referenced in Counts One and Eight were obtained by Petitioner in 1999 from an examination of a viatical settlement provider named Mutual Benefits Corporation; (2) The documents referenced in Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven were obtained by Petitioner in 2000 in response to a document production request to a viatical settlement provider named Future First Financial Group; (3) the documents reference in Count Nine were obtained by Petitioner in 2002 from an examination of a viatical settlement provider named William Page & Associates; and (4) the documents referenced in Counts Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-one, Twenty-two, Twenty- three, Twenty-four, Twenty-five, and Twenty-six were obtained by Petitioner in 2000 from files which had been obtained from Respondent by execution of a search warrant by the Offices of Statewide Prosecution and Petitioner's Division of Insurance Fraud. With respect to the documents obtained from the first three sources-Mutual Benefits Corporation, Future First Financial Group, and William Page & Associates-Petitioner has failed to offer proof that the referenced documents were ever actually in the possession of Respondent. Although it may be reasonable to presume that the actual forms of Respondent were in the possession of Respondent at some point in connection with the referenced viatical settlement transactions, Petitioner has offered no testimony regarding how those records were maintained by the three viatical settlement providers. Moreover, Petitioner failed to offer any evidence that the insurance policy applications were ever in the possession of Respondent. Petitioner has offered no evidence upon which to make a finding that Respondent actually possessed the particular insurance policy applications which were obtained from the three viatical settlement providers. While Petitioner offered testimony from former employees of Respondent to the effect that Respondent obtained insurance policy applications from viators in general, such testimony does not establish that the particular insurance policy applications in the possession of the three viatical settlement providers were actually obtained by Respondent. None of Respondent's application forms referenced by Petitioner in the Administrative Complaint required submission of an insurance application. Because Petitioner has failed to offer any evidence that the particular insurance policy applications referenced in Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine were ever actually possessed by Respondent, there is no basis upon which to make a finding of fact that Respondent should have reported to Petitioner anything set forth in such insurance policy applications. Petitioner may not penalize Respondent based upon a mere assumption that Respondent possessed the insurance policies referenced in those nine counts of the Administrative Complaint. With respect to the documents referenced by Petitioner in Counts Ten through Twenty-six, Davis testified that copies of those documents were obtained from Respondent's files which had been obtained by the Office of Statewide Prosecution and the Division of Insurance Fraud through execution of a search warrant in 2000. Although Davis had no involvement in or personal knowledge concerning the circumstances surrounding the execution of that search warrant, this evidence is sufficient to substantiate its allegations that Respondent actually possessed the insurance applications referenced by Petitioner in Counts Ten through Twenty-six of the Administrative Complaint in its files. In Count Ten of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Eight submitted to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated March 21, 1996, which represented that Viator Eight had not been treated for or diagnosed with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) within the last ten years. Viator Eight submitted to Respondent an application form, dated July 8, 1998, which represented that Viator Eight had first been diagnosed with AIDS in 1989. The question on Respondent's application asks for the date of first diagnosis of the "current medical condition" which is described in the preceding question. While Viator Eight's description of his "current medical condition" on Respondent's application includes "AIDS," it also includes a "history of Hodgekins Lymphoma" as well as other conditions. The information on Respondent's application does not specify whether the 1989 diagnosis was for AIDS or the other disorders listed as Viator Eight's "current medical condition"; however, this information is sufficient to alert Respondent's employees that a fraudulent insurance act is being or has been committed and trigger the reporting requirement of the statute. In Count Eleven of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Eight submitted to Manhattan Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated July 3, 1996, which represented that Viator Eight had not consulted with or been treated by any licensed physician or medical practitioner within the last five years and was in excellent health. Viator Eight submitted to Respondent an application, dated July 8, 1998, which represented that Viator Eight had first been diagnosed with AIDS in 1989 and was being attended by Dr. Ronald Wiewora. The "current medical condition" described by Viator Eight in Respondent's application form states a diagnosis in 1989 of AIDS and Hodgekins Lymphoma, and "recent difficulties with protein inhibitors . . ." This is sufficient information to require the reporting of potential fraud under the statute. In Count Twelve of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Time Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated August 6, 1996, which represented that Viator Nine had not had a physical examination, diagnostic test, medical treatment, health impairment, or been advised to undergo any treatment within the past five years. However, the application also represented that he had not been diagnosed with AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC) or received treatment for it within the past ten years. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS and had first been diagnosed Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive in February 1991. This was sufficient information to require the reporting of potential fraud under the statute. In Count Thirteen of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Jackson National Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated March 5, 1992, which represented that Viator Nine had not been treated by a physician or other medical practitioner, or been a patient in a clinic or medical facility, or been diagnosed or treated for AIDS or any other immunological disorder, within the past five years. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which represented that Viator Nine had first been diagnosed with AIDS in February 1991 and was not presently employed. This was sufficient information to require the reporting of potential fraud under the statute. In Count Fourteen of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Interstate Assurance Company an insurance policy application, date March 21, 1993, which represented that within the last ten years Viator Nine had not been diagnosed or treated by a member of the medical profession for an immune system disorder and that within the last five years he had not been hospitalized or treated by a member of the medical profession or consulted a physician or been prescribed any medication. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS and had first been diagnosed HIV positive in February 1991. Although the insurance application did not specifically request disclosure of a diagnosis of HIV positive and did not define the term "immune system disorder" to include a diagnosis of HIV positive, Viator Nine's disclosure on Respondent's application of a diagnosis of HIV positive was sufficient to alert an employee of Respondent to report the potential for fraud under the statute and to require that this information be reported. In Count Fifteen of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Interstate Assurance Company an insurance policy application, dated March 4, 1994, which represented that, within the last ten years, Viator Nine had not been diagnosed or treated by a member of the medical profession for an immune system disorder and that within the last five years he had not been hospitalized or treated by a member of the medical profession or consulted a physician or been prescribed any medication. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS and had first been diagnosed HIV positive in February 1991 and that Dr. Leslie Diaz represented on Respondent's "Physician's Questionnaire-HIV Disease" form, dated, September 4, 1997, that Viator Nine had the HIV disease and a life expectancy of five to ten years. Although the insurance application did not define the term "immune system disorder" to include a diagnosis of HIV positive, Viator Nine's disclosure on Respondent's application of a diagnosis of HIV positive was sufficient to alert an employee of Respondent of the need to report the potential for fraud under the statute. In Count Sixteen of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Security Mutual Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated November 4, 1997, which represented that Viator Nine had not been treated for or had any known indication of AIDS, ARC, or tested positive for HIV antibodies. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS, had first been diagnosed HIV positive in February 1991, and was being treated by Dr. Leslie Diaz. This is sufficient to trigger the reporting requirement of the statute. In Count Seventeen of the Administrative Complaint, the evidence submitted indicated that Viator Nine submitted to Columbia Universal Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application for a face amount coverage of $70,000, dated August 28, 1998, which represented that Viator Nine had not been diagnosed with any immune deficiency disease. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS, had first been diagnosed HIV positive February 1991, and was being treated by Dr. Leslie Diaz. On Respondent's form submitted in 1997, Viator Nine indicated that he had a preexisting life insurance policy, in the face amount of $200,000, with Columbia Universal Life issued on December 28, 1985. There is no apparent connection between Respondent's application, dated August 15, 1997, and the Columbia Universal Life application, dated August 28, 1998, that would trigger the necessity of an employee of Respondent to make a report. In Count Eighteen of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated August 28, 1998, which represented that Viator Nine had not been told that he had tested positive for exposure to the HIV infection and that to the best of his knowledge, his health was not impaired in any way. Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS, had first been diagnosed HIV positive in February 1991, and was being treated by Dr. Leslie Diaz. Respondent's application relates to an individual life policy issued by the Columbus Mutual Insurance Company, in the face amount of $200,000, dated December 28, 1985. There is no apparent connection between Respondent's application, dated August 15, 1997, and the Philadelphia Life Insurance Company policy application, dated August 28, 1998. Therefore, there was no obligation to report. In Count Nineteen of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Nine submitted to Respondent an application, dated August 15, 1997, which stated that Viator Nine had AIDS, had first been diagnosed HIV positive in February 1991, and was being treated by Dr. Leslie Diaz. Viator Nine submitted to United Home Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated April 23, 1999, which represented that within the last ten years Viator Nine had not tested positive for exposure to the HIV infection, had not tested positive for antibodies to the AIDS virus, and had not consulted a medical practitioner within the last five years. Respondent's application relates to an individual life policy issued by Columbus Mutual Insurance Company, in the face amount of $200,000, dated December 28, 1985. There is no apparent connection between Respondent's application, dated August 15, 1997, and the United Home policy application, dated April 23, 1999. Therefore, there was no obligation to report. In Count Twenty of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Ten submitted to Respondent an application form, dated August 15, 1997, which represented that Viator Ten had AIDS, had first been diagnosed HIV positive in February 1991, and was being treated by Dr. Leslie Diaz. Viator Ten submitted to Federal Home Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated October 20, 1997, which represented that within the last ten years Viator Ten had not tested positive for exposure to the AIDS virus, had not been treated for the AIDS virus, and had not consulted a medical practitioner within the last five years. Respondent withheld this insurance policy from sale for a period of time because Respondent knew that Viator Ten had not yet submitted the application for the policy to the life insurance company and that it contained false information. Respondent had an obligation to report these discrepancies. In Count Twenty-one of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Eleven submitted to Manhattan Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated April 25, 1996, which represented that Viator Eleven had not consulted, been examined or treated by any licensed physician or medical practitioner within the last five years. Viator Eleven submitted to Respondent an application, dated April 14, 1998, in the attachments it stated that Viator Eleven had first been diagnosed HIV positive in September 1991, and as of November 1995 had been diagnosed with AIDS and had received treatment from a physician since that time. Although the insurance application does not request any information regarding any diagnosis or treatment for AIDS or HIV, Viator Eleven stated that he did not have a family physician, had not seen a physician in the past, and was not taking any medication. This was obviously false, and Respondent should have reported it. In Count Twenty-two of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Twelve submitted to Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated July 1, 1996, which represented that Viator Twelve had not been told that he had or had been treated for an immune deficiency disorder, AIDS, ARC, or had test results indicating exposure to the HIV virus. Viator Twelve submitted to Respondent an application, dated December 3, 1996, which represented that Viator Twelve had "asymptomatic HIV" and had first been diagnosed in 1991. This was sufficient to trigger the reporting requirement. In Count Twenty-three of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Twelve submitted to Primerica Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated July 30, 1996, which represented that Viator Twelve had not within the past ten years been diagnosed or treated for AIDS or any immune deficiency disorder or tested positive for exposure to the HIV virus. Viator Twelve submitted to Respondent and application, dated December 3, 1996, which represented that Viator Twelve had "asymptomatic HIV" and had first been diagnosed in 1991. This was sufficient to trigger the reporting requirement. In Count Twenty-four of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Thirteen submitted to Nationwide Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated July 25, 1997, which represented that Viator Thirteen had not within the past five years been diagnosed or treated for AIDS, ARC, or any other immune deficiency syndrome and had not been examined or treated by any physician or medical practitioner, or by any hospital, clinic, or medical facility not previously mentioned on the application. Viator Thirteen submitted to Respondent an application, dated January 12, 1998, which represented that Viator Thirteen had been diagnosed HIV positive in 1992 and had been diagnosed with AIDS in 1994 and that information supplied by Viator Thirteen's physician on Respondent's "Physician's Questionnaire-HIV Disease" form confirmed those representations. Although Respondent withheld Viator Thirteen's policy from sale for a period of time, Respondent's personnel noted that Viator Thirteen had lied on the application. Respondent failed to report this fact to Petitioner. In Count Twenty-five of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Three submitted to Respondent an application, dated April 11, 1995, which represented that Viator Three had been diagnosed HIV positive in May 1986 and had been diagnosed with AIDS in March 1995. Viator Three submitted to Allstate Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated July 31, 1995, which represented that Viator Three had never been diagnosed with or treated for AIDS, ARC, or an AIDS-related condition. Since the application for the life insurance policy and the application to Respondent were submitted prior to the enactment of the Viatical Settlement Act, Respondent had no duty to report possible fraud in this instance, since it occurred prior to July 1, 1996, the effective date for the statute. In Count Twenty-six of the Administrative Complaint, Viator Three submitted to Respondent an application, dated December 3, 1996, which represented that Viator Three had been diagnosed HIV positive in May 1986 and had been diagnosed with AIDS on September 4, 1996, and that on Respondent's "Physician's Questionnaire-HIV Disease" form, dated May 18, 1995, submitted by Dr. Carroll L. Cook, confirmed those representations. Viator Three submitted to Nationwide Life Insurance Company an insurance policy application, dated October 20, 1995, which represented that Viator Three had not, within the last five years, been diagnosed with or treated for AIDS, ARC, or any other immune deficiency disorder. This is sufficient to trigger the reporting requirement. The evidence is clear and convincing, as to Counts Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Twenty, Twenty-one, Twenty-two, Twenty-three, Twenty-four, and Twenty-six of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent, in the performance of its role as a viatical settlement broker, routinely received from viators and reviewed written information about their medical condition, particularly regarding the presence of an HIV/AIDS diagnosis, that directly and materially contradicted information supplied by that same viator on one or more written and corresponding insurance policy applications, also routinely received and reviewed by Respondent. The same viators who represented on the relevant life insurance policy applications that they did not have HIV or AIDS represented on viatical applications that they did have that condition during the same material times. This is especially true, wherein Viator Nine submitted eight applications to Respondent on the same date, August 15, 1997. In each instance, the contrast is so great that any reasonable person, especially an employee of Respondent in the viatical industry, would have to know or believe that the life insurance policy being offered for sale through Respondent had been obtained through misrepresentations made by the viator on or in support of the insurance policy application. Respondent not only failed to report those circumstances to Petitioner, but proceeded to offer many of those policies for sale to viatical settlement providers. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent, during the relevant time period, had no company policy requiring or even acknowledging an obligation to report such matters to Petitioner and that the usual and prevalent custom of Respondent was to send the applications to providers without comment. Only after 1999 did Respondent instruct its employees to direct such suspicious viatical applications to the attention of a company vice-president. Even then, no reports were filed with Petitioner. Thus, Respondent's admitted failure to report cannot be ascribed to the negligence or inattention of a company officer or employee to his or her duty to fulfill a company policy requiring such reports, since there was no such policy. It is clear that Respondent simply ignored the reporting requirements in the statute and, in most instances, offered the tainted viatical applications/insurance policies for sale to viatical settlement providers without comment. Accordingly, it is found that any and all admitted failures to report the circumstances alleged in Counts Ten through Sixteen, Twenty through Twenty-four, and Twenty-six in the Administrative Complaint were willful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order as follows: Dismissing Counts One through Nine, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-five. Finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 626.989(6) in Counts Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Twenty, Twenty-one, Twenty-two, Twenty-three, Twenty-four, and Twenty-six of the Administrative Complaint; and In conformity with the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation and the earlier, seven-page stipulation of the parties, finding the violations in question willful, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $30,000 and subjecting Respondent to two years of probation under the terms and conditions set forth in the seven-page stipulation, paragraph 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas J. Maida, Esquire N. Wes Strickland, Esquire Foley & Lardner 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether the licenses of Frank Joseph Brennan should be disciplined for actions of Mr. Brennan or of agents associated with Frank J. Brennan, P.A. with respect to the sale of insurance products to three (3) clients: Rebecca Fisher, Celine M. Rompre, and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph T. Nolan.
Findings Of Fact Frank Brennan Frank Joseph Brennan holds licenses as an ordinary life agent, ordinary life including health, health agent, and ordinary-variable annuity agent. Brennan is the owner and president of Frank J. Brennan, P.A., which sells life and health insurance products, including tax sheltered annuities of the National Western Life Insurance Company. The firm has several thousand tax sheltered annuity clients. Brennan had been the president and the director of Lancer Securities Corporation. On March 22, 1979, he was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for acting as an officer or director of any registered investment company. That injunction states that it did not constitute evidence against or an admission by Brennan, and that the injunction did not "establish or prove any of the acts alleged or asserted in any pleadings." Brennan was suspended from associating with any investment advisor for 120 days, and barred from associating thereafter with an investment advisor other than as a supervised employee in an order entered by the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 1979. Brennan was barred from associating with any member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. in the capacity of a principal in an order entered by that association on October 15, 1980. Brennan was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 1980 from associating with any member in the capacity of a principal and fined $1,000. In May 1983, United Equitable Insurance Company terminated Brennan as an agent based on an adverse Equifax report. That report was not placed in evidence. (The foregoing findings 3 through 7 are based upon the Department of Insurance's Second Request for Admissions and Fifth Request for Official Recognition.) The Relationship Of Gregory Langsett And Betty Jones To The Frank J. Brennan, P.A. Frank J. Brennan, P.A., has contracts with a number of licensed insurance agents, including Gregory Langsett and Betty Jones. Langsett has a producer agreement with National Western Life Insurance Company which describes him as an independent contractor, and an agent's agreement with the Brennan firm. Under the agent's agreement Langsett has with the Brennan professional association dated December 4, 1981, Langsett is deemed an independent contractor and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee. You are free to exercise your own judgement as to the persons from whom you solicit applications and the time and place of such solicitation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 28, Paragraph 1.) Brennan had been involved in training of Langsett and Jones when they first were associated with the firm. Agents such as Langsett and Jones are not listed on the employer's quarterly wage report made by the Frank J. Brennan, P.A. to the State of Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. Agents such as Langsett and Jones pay their own estimated income tax withholding and their own social security taxes. The Brennan firm does provide agents with business cards (although Jones had her own cards printed). It also provides sales kits, telephone answering, postal services, makes available space for meeting with clients at the firm office and provides accounting services incident to the payment of commissions on business submitted to carriers through the firm, all without charge to the agents. Educational meetings are held on Fridays, which the agents are encouraged, but not required, to attend which discuss the various insurance products available through insurance companies the Brennan firm is associated with. Agents benefit from advertising done by the Brennan firm. Brennan occasionally provides leads to agents. For example, January 1986 Brennan provided to Betty Jones and her husband (also a licensed insurance agent) a list of approximately 100 names of employees of the Boca Raton Academy so that they could be solicited for purchase of tax sheltered annuities, and an arrangement was worked out under which Brennan and the Joneses would divide commissions from any such sales. There is no evidence that Brennan controlled the time, place or manner of these solicitations, or of any other solicitations for the purchase of insurance products. Langsett and Jones were not subject to the direct supervision and control of Brennan in their activities of soliciting insurance clients. They are not employees of the Professional Association -- they are independent contractors. This arrangement of appointing soliciting agents who are independent contractors is used by other sellers of tax sheltered annuities, and is not unique to the Brennan firm. (Tr. 496, 579). Brennan does have the authority, based on his contracts with insurance carriers, to appoint licensed agents as agents of insurance carriers. Rebecca Fisher's Dealings With Frank J. Brennan, P.A. and Frank Brennan Rebecca Fisher is an employee of the Dade County School Board. She contacted Langsett concerning tax sheltered annuities offered by the National Western Life Insurance Company, after learning of Langsett from another employee. Under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, employees of school boards may have a portion of their wages paid into a tax sheltered annuity. They pay no income tax on the amounts deposited in the annuity through payroll deduction and the interest paid on the amounts deposited is not taxed when earned. Such annuities are long term savings plans designed to supplement the participant's retirement income. Ms. Fisher already had a tax sheltered annuity with Northern Life Insurance Company which had a face value of over $90,000. She had bought it through an insurance agent, Mr. Paul Indianer, with whom she had dealt over a number of years. Langsett met with Mrs. Fisher at her home for about 15 to 20 minutes on a Saturday in June 1985. Mrs. Fisher was not able to spend much time with Mr. Langsett that day because she had to go to a funeral at about noon. Thereafter, Mrs. Fisher attempted to call Langsett at the Brennan insurance offices. She called after 5:00 p.m. and Langsett was not there. Respondent Brennan answered the phone call. They discussed the possibility of opening a tax sheltered annuity account through National Western by rolling over into a new account money she had in her current tax sheltered annuity. Mrs. Fisher knew if the money were rolled over she would incur a surrender charge. She also discussed with Brennan whether it would be possible to borrow money from a new National Western tax sheltered annuity for home improvements. She was told money borrowed from a National Western annuity could be used for home improvements, and taxes would not have to be paid on the money borrowed from the annuity until her death. Her current annuity did not have a provision that permitted borrowing. At the hearing the provision permitting borrowing was referred to as the TEFRA provision -- so known , because it had its genesis in a portion of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). (Tr. 45, 46, 80) Reviewing the totality of Mrs. Fisher's testimony, the Hearing Officer is not persuaded that Mrs. Fisher is able to recall with clarity the conversation which she had with Mr. Brennan. For example, the Hearing Officer does not accept the testimony that Respondent or Langsett told Fisher that National Western would pay 20 percent interest the first year and 18 percent the second year on its annuities. Those figures represented the surrender charges on the Northern Life tax sheltered annuity she already had. Neither did Brennan tell Fisher that she would get $75,000 of free life insurance in connection with a new tax sheltered annuity. One of the possibilities Brennan mentioned to Fisher was a more involved transaction in which her money would be rolled over into a new tax sheltered annuity, and a $50,000 loan would be taken against that new annuity. The $50,000 might be used to purchase a single premium life insurance policy. Interest paid on the amount placed in that policy would accumulate without any income tax being owed on the interest as it was paid. National Western Life Insurance Company would provide $75,000 of life insurance in connection with such a policy, over and above its $50,000 face amount, for a $155,000 total life insurance benefit. The single premium life insurance policy does not make a specific charge for the $75,000 additional death benefit. There is, of course, a charge for this insurance in that the interest rate paid on the $50,000 deposited in the single premium life insurance policy is reduced by the mortality charge on the $75,000 additional death benefit. Mrs. Fisher confused these two different insurance products (the tax sheltered annuity and the single premium life insurance policy), and thought that the life insurance was part of the tax sheltered annuity, which is not what Brennan discussed. Mrs. Fisher's notes of her conversation indicate that there would be a rollover penalty assessed against the face amount of her Northern Life tax sheltered annuity if she moved it to a National Western tax sheltered annuity. She had incurred penalties when she had moved money from her first annuity with Franklin Life to Standard Life the second annuity from Standard Life to Northern Life, both at the suggestion of her insurance advisor/agent, Mr. Indianer. (Tr. 57). Those notes also appear to indicate that Brennan referred to her current Northern Life tax sheltered annuity as "antiquated," and described the method by which payments are made under the annuity as "suicide" from an income tax point-of-view. In view of the complexity of these insurance matters, and Mrs. Fisher's misunderstanding of what Brennan had said on other significant portions of the conversation, the Hearing Officer is not satisfied that the evidence is clear and convincing that Brennan used those terms to describe Mrs. Fisher's current insurance products in his conversation with Mrs. Fisher. Similarly, the testimony that Brennan referred to her old Franklin Life and Standard Life annuities (which Indianer had already persuaded her to replace) as "garbage" is not accepted. Under the Internal Revenue Code, if money were borrowed from the annuity for the purpose of home improvements, no tax would be due on the amount borrowed until the annuitant's death, or the surrender of the annuity for cash or annuitization. (Tr. 624, 781). Borrowings for other purposes must be paid back in five years or they are treated as a distribution from the shelter, and require that income tax be paid on that distribution. Neither the code nor case law requires a loan to be repaid when the annuitant reaches a certain age. In short, contrary to the allegations of Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence is not convincing that Brennan made improper or defamatory remarks about Fisher's prior annuities or existing annuity, that he misrepresented the actual tax implications of the plans or the interest rate offered by the plans, or falsely represented that Fisher would receive $75,000 of free life insurance with a National Western annuity contract. Celine Rompre's Dealings With Betty J. Jones Betty J. Jones is an insurance agent licensed by the State of Florida. She also worked as an independent contractor through the Frank J. Brennan, P.A., selling tax sheltered annuity products of the National Western Life Insurance Company. Unlike Langsett there is no evidence that she has a written contract with the Brennan firm, but she does have a producer agreement with National Western Life Insurance Company. On or about July 23, 1985, Ms. Jones solicited Celine M. Rompre for the purpose of selling her a National Western Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Rompre was an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board who already had a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity payroll deduction handled through Voyager Life Insurance Company; the insurance agency which had sold that annuity to her was owned by Edward Parmele. Respondent Brennan personally had nothing to do with the solicitation which Betty J. Jones made of Celine Rompre. Betty J. Jones was not acting under the direct supervision and control of Frank J. Brennan in that transaction. Betty Jones met with Celine Rompre and discussed the National Western tax sheltered annuity. Mrs. Rompre's husband also works and the Rompres do not need Mrs. Rompre's salary for living expenses. At the time she spoke with Betty Jones, Mrs. Rompre's annual salary was $5,500. She believed that it would increase to $7,200 at the beginning of the next school year, which did happen. At the time Mrs. Rompre was putting $1,040 into her Voyager Insurance Company tax sheltered annuity each year. Betty Jones discussed with Mrs. Rompre increasing her tax sheltered annuity contribution to approximately $4,000 per year. Jones told her that the maximum amount she could contribute would have to be separately calculated for each year. (Tr. 752). Mrs. Rompre was interested in this because Mrs. Rompre's daughter was then in the 8th grade, and it would be possible to borrow against that money to help with her daughter's education. Mrs. Rompre knew she would incur a substantial surrender charge on her current annuity if she switched to National Western. She signed papers prepared by Jones to accomplish the transfer of her annuity to National Western. Rompre was not eligible to increase her Section 403(b) annuity contribution immediately because she had changed her contribution once that year and only one change in the payroll deduction can be made annually. (Tr. 751). When the paperwork went to the School Board to change the annuity from the Voyager annuity to the National Western annuity, Mrs. Rompre was contacted by Mr. Parmele about her Voyager annuity. He stated that Mrs. Rompre could not put $4,000 per year into a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. This influenced Mrs. Rompre to cancel the transfer to National Western. In fact, Mrs. Rompre was in a situation where she qualified to put as much as $5,051 into a tax sheltered annuity (this amount is known as the maximum exclusion allowance) over the next year under a catch-up provision of the Internal Revenue Code because she had not been contributing to an annuity for all eight years she had been employed by the Palm Beach County School Board. (Tr. 780). There is no evidence that Ms. Rompre was contributing to any other qualified retirement plans that would have affected her maximum exclusion allowance. Betty Jones did not misrepresent to Celine Rompre the amount of her maximum exclusion allowance, the terms of the surrender charges for the Voyager life insurance policy or the National Western life insurance policy, or improperly affixed the signature of Celine Rompre to a letter to the Voyager Life Insurance Company requesting cancellation of her existing account. Dealings Of Frank J. Brennan With The Nolans In about March of 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Nolan went to Brennan for help preparing their tax return and for financial planning. Mr. Brennan had been highly recommended to them. Mr. Nolan is a loss prevention manager for Radio Shack, and Mrs. Nolan is employed by the School Board of Broward County. Mr. Nolan had recently received an inheritance of about $30,000 and was looking for a way to invest it. The Nolans emphasized that the investment vehicle be liquid so they could access the money if they needed it. They were concerned that they might need it for the care of their parents. When Mr. Nolan came to Brennan, he had whole life insurance policies with Prudential and Metropolitan Life which had some cash value. Brennan suggested those policies be cancelled so that the cash value could be invested, and this was done. Mrs. Nolan's Section 403(b) Tax Sheltered Annuity When the Nolans came to Brennan, Mrs. Nolan did not have a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Brennan suggested that she contribute to such an annuity program as a means of saving on income taxes. He also told them they could borrow against those funds, but this was of no interest to the Nolans. Mrs. Nolan purchased a tax sheltered annuity with Great American Life Insurance Company which currently paid 13.75 percent interest. One of the documents which is filled out to begin the payroll deduction with the Broward County School Board for Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuities is an amendment to the annuitant's employment contract to cause part of the salary to be paid directly into the annuity. On that form there are disclosures, including whether there is a sales charge, administration fee, or transfer fee, as well as whether there is a surrender charge. The amendment which she executed does not show any surrender charge in connection with the Great American Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) annuity she purchased. Later the Nolans received another copy of the amendment which had the surrender charge portion filled in. It stated there would be a surrender charge of one-fifth of the first year's deposits only, which is waived if all proceeds are withdrawn over 36 months or longer. When Mr. Nolan received this he immediately called Mr. Brennan to ask about the surrender charge. Brennan told him that the annuity document itself explained the surrender charge and it should have been on the amendment to the employment contract as well. Brennan negligently failed to explain the surrender charge to the Nolans when the annuity was first taken out. After receiving the altered amendment to employment contract, Mrs. Nolan instructed the School Board to stop the annuity deductions as of December She had contributed $7,234 to the annuity at that time. The Nolans then asked to cancel the annuity because they had not been made aware of the surrender charge. Mr. Brennan responded by stating that in order to get the refund, they would have to sign a release at the request of the insurance company, but the Nolans refused to sign any release. They prepared a short letter to the insurance company seeking the recision of the policy. Brennan also wrote to the company seeking the refund. The Nolans did receive their money back. In connection with the rescission, the Nolans demanded and received from Brennan assurances that if the amount deposited in the annuity were not received by March 3, 1986, that Brennan would pay 10 percent interest per year on the proceeds until the Nolans received the proceeds. The Nolans received the amount before the agreed date when Brennan would begin to pay interest. The amount they received was only the principal paid in, however, and did not include any interest for the period the money had been held by Great American Life Insurance Company. Repayment of the $7,234 rendered these funds subject to current income taxes, because that income had not been subject to tax when placed in the annuity. The Nolans' Other Insurance Purchases From Brennan When the Great American Section 403(b) annuity was purchased, the Nolans also purchased other insurance products. These included two $2,000 individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for Mr. and Mrs. Nolan with National Western in the form of annuity policies, a Kemper Life Insurance policy on Mr. Nolan with a face value of $100,000 to replace the existing policies he had cancelled, and a $30,000 single premium endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan from National Western Life Insurance Company, which included a life insurance benefit so that the face amount of the policy was $200,602. These purchases saved the Nolans about $3,000 in income taxes. The Nolan's had had IRA accounts at savings and loan institutions before they came to Brennan, which they would roll over when the instruments in which the money was deposited matured. Brennan explained that these National Western annuities were different than the accounts they had. These annuities were cancelled because the Nolans became dissatisfied with Brennan due to the non-disclosure of the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) annuity with Great American Life Insurance Company. Mr. Brennan arranged for those to be cancelled without penalty at the request of the Nolans. They received the principal paid in plus interest. After the cancellation of the prior whole life policies at Brennan's suggestion, see Finding of Fact 37, above, Mr. Nolan purchased a Kemper Life Insurance term life insurance policy. At first he considered rescinding it along with the IRAs, also due to dissatisfaction with Brennan because of the failure to disclose the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) annuity. Ultimately he kept the Kemper policy, which was a better policy than the ones that had been cancelled. The $30,000 inheritance Mr. Nolan received was used to purchase a $30,000 single premium life endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan, which then paid 11.12 percent interest on the amount deposited and permitted borrowing from the policy at 7.4 percent. The policy was placed on Mrs. Nolan's life because she was the better underwriting risk. The interest which accrued on that policy was not subject to current federal income taxation, so the purchase was consistent with the Nolan's goal of achieving a high yield on the money with minimum taxation. That $30,000 premium purchased over $200,000 worth of life insurance on Mrs. Nolan, which Brennan described as "a freebie" in connection with the tax sheltered investment of the $30,000. This policy was cancelled under a policy provision which gave the right to cancel the policy during the first year, in part due to dissatisfaction with Brennan over the non-disclosure of the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Nolan was also dissatisfied with the endowment policy after he received it because (1) the interest guaranteed to be paid on the $30,000 was only 4 percent although he understood that the actual interest to be paid would fluctuate with economic conditions and be competitive and (2) to access the $30,000 he could not withdraw money, but had to borrow from the policy. Although a loan could be processed quickly, Mr. Nolan did not like the idea of having to borrow his own money. The record is not clear whether the Nolans did or did not receive interest on the $30,000 for the time it was on deposit with National Western Life Insurance Company before the cancellation. The policy itself provides that on cancellation the insured "will be refunded the greater of the premium you paid or the cash value at that time." (Respondent's Exhibit 25) Because Mrs. Nolan signed an application naming Mr. Nolan and beneficiary for the insurance purchased with the $30,000, because she had a physical examination to obtain the policy, and because the check to purchase it was made out to National Western Life Insurance, Mr. Nolan's testimony that he did not understand that the "investment" he was making with his $30,000 involved the purchase of an insurance policy is not accepted. Brennan did sell the $30,000 policy to the Nolans in part on the basis that they would receive approximately $200,000 in free life insurance. The Nolans were more interested in a tax shelter for the $30,000 that would pay high interest, not in the insurance benefit. In summary, Brennan failed to explain the surrender charge associated with the Great American Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity to the Nolans when it was purchased. Brennan made no misrepresentations with respect to the sale of the two annuities from National Western Life Insurance which were to be used as the Nolans' individual retirement accounts. There were no misrepresentations made to Mr. Nolan with respect to the purchase of his Kemper Life Insurance policy, which he still has. Brennan told the Nolans that they would receive free life insurance associated with the deposit of $30,000 in the endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan's life, which had been purchased due to the tax free accumulation of interest on the $30,000 deposited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. That on Count III, for offering free life insurance as an inducement for the deposit of $30,000 in the single premium endowment policy, Brennan be FINED $2,500.00 and his license SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0707 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. See Rule 28-5.405(3), Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Before ruling on the individual proposals made by the Petitioner, it is appropriate to make some general comments. The proposals submitted by the Petitioner are exceptionally detailed, indeed unnecessarily so. Many are rejected as unnecessary or cumulative to the facts found in the Recommended Order. Others are irrelevant because they address issues not properly raised by the allegations of the First Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of the principal witnesses on counts one and two, Rebecca Fisher and Celine Rompre, was certainly sincere but generally unpersuasive. The testimony of the other expert witnesses who make their livings by selling tax sheltered annuities was also not convincing because their view of Mr. Brennan and his activities is so colored by their competition. Mr. Parmele's testimony left an abiding impression of hostility to Brennan for trying to persuade clients of Parmele to switch their annuities to companies represented by Brennan, and Parmele's testimony is discounted based upon his hostility. Mr. Indianer was not as hostile, but his financial interest in removing Brennan as a competitor also causes substantial discounting of his testimony. The opinions of Robert Storms are accorded little weight because he does not regard himself as an expert in tax sheltered annuities. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 3-6. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected because it is not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript citation given. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary, and unsupported by the transcript citation given. Covered in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unsupported by transcript citation given which only reflects a division of commissions between the Jones' and Brennan with respect to sales to employees of the Boca Raton Academy. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the exhibit citation given. PX 25 authorizes Langsett to procure applications; whether this is a license as a "writing agent" is unclear. Rejected as a statement of law. Rejected because Betty Jones had no written contract with the Brennan firm. Langsett's relationships are covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected because Jones had no written contract with the Brennan firm. With respect to Langsett's contract with the firm, rejected as irrelevant. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 8. Jones had no written contract with the firm. Rejected because Langsett and Jones testified that being independent contractors included that they pay their own expenses, not meant that they pay their own expenses. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with the transcript citations given. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent that the information was provided in the form of sales kits, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate and cumulative to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and inconsistent with the transcript citation given. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact, also irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as unnecessary. The citation given supports only the statement made as to Betty Jones. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. - Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact, also unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact, also unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as inconsistent with Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected for the reasons stated for the rejection of proposed finding of fact 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Further, Mr. Storm's testimony is not persuasive on the point. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the form, PX 9, is a creation of a committee which is advisory to the risk manager of the School Board of Broward County and has no legal status. Rejected because the form, PX 9, is a creation of a committee which is advisory to the risk manager of the School Board of Broward County and has no legal status. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Mr. Storm's testimony as to what would be misleading is unpersuasive. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. The power to appoint sub-agents who become producers for insurance carriers does not mean that Brennan exercised direct supervision and control over such persons, or over Langsett and Jones in the situations at issue in this matter. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 25. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony7 not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the finding is taken out of context. Agents such as Langsett submit business through the Brennan firm and receive their commission through the accounting system at the Brennan firm. When the files are submitted to the carriers, this does not imply that the firm has the right not to pay Langsett, it is the medium through which his payments are processed. See Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as a misstatement of the testimony. That testimony occurred because Langsett was asked about commissions payable in a situation he never had experienced. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 12 concerning education. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 12 and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. As pointed out at the beginning of these rulings, Mrs. Fisher's version of her dealings with Langsett and Brennan were not found persuasive. For example, only one meeting occurred between Fisher and Langsett, not two. Rejected as irrelevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint and unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected because I do not accept Mrs. Fisher's version of the events, rendering Mr. Indianer's comments on that version irrelevant and unnecessary. See also the general comment about Indianer at the beginning of this section. The issue of free life insurance is covered in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not findings of fact. Covered in Findings of Fact 27, 29, 30 and 31. Many of the proposed findings are rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 29, 30 and 31. The proposal that Jones told Rompre she could deposit $4,000 per year for five years is rejected and the contrary testimony of Ms. Jones, incorporated in Finding of Fact 31, has been accepted. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Storms is not found persuasive. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not findings of fact. Many of the proposals are unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected because Mr. Parmele's testimony is not found persuasive. Further, many of the proposals aggregated in the finding are unnecessary. That Jones told Rompre she could deposit $4,000 a year for five years has been rejected. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Covered in Finding of Fact 1. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 25. The proposal that Jones had a written agent's agreement with the Brennan firm is rejected because no such document was offered in evidence. To the extent necessary, covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary but discussed in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact as relates to the credibility of Indianer and Parmele. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary but discussed in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 14. Covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary because Indianer's testimony has not been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 14 and 25. Covered in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and 31. Covered in Finding of Fact 29. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as cumulative to Findings of Fact 30 and 31. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Parmele has not been accepted for the reasons. stated in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. See also Finding of Fact 33. Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as unnecessary because it is based on income of $7,200 which was not Mrs. Rompre's income at the time of her meeting with Betty Jones. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. To the extent not cumulative, covered in Finding of Fact 31. Covered in Findings of Fact 35 and 38. Covered in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 43. Covered in Findings of Fact 39, 44 and 46. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and because the problem was not only that the form did not contain the surrender charge, but that Brennan had not explained the surrender charge to the Nolans when the Great American Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity was first purchased. Generally rejected as unnecessary. The surrender value is explained in the altered amendment to the employment contract. See Finding of Fact 39. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 41. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 44. Covered in Finding of Fact 44. Covered in Finding of Fact 46 and 47. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 46. Covered in Finding of Fact 46. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 46. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary and because the testimony of Mr. Indianer has not been found persuasive. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Parmele has not been accepted. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. Sentences 1 and 2, covered in Finding of Fact 14. The remainder, rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Falco, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Room 413-B, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Russell L. Forkey, Esquire Pamela M. Burdick, Esquire 400 Southeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, as beneficiary of her deceased father's State of Florida life insurance policy, is entitled to a benefit of $10,000 or $2,500, and is related to how notice of a change in coverage amount and premium was provided to the decedent.
Findings Of Fact At the time of his death on November 29, 2008, Maurice Adkins was covered by the state life insurance plan, as a retired employee of the State of Florida. The Petitioner, Justina Mullennix, is the daughter of Mr. Adkins and is the beneficiary of any life insurance benefits paid or payable from the state life insurance plan on account of the death of her father. Effective January 1, 2000, the coverage for retirees was increased to $10,000.00. The premium for this coverage was $4.20 per month. The DSGI prepared a letter dated July 31, 2006, to notify the retirees that effective January 1, 2007, the life insurance benefit options provided to retirees would change. The changes allowed retirees to elect one of the following options: $2,500 benefit for a monthly premium of $ 4.20. $10,000 benefit for a monthly premium of $35.79. Termination of coverage. The letter dated July 31, 2006, informed retirees that their life insurance premium would remain the same, but that their coverage would be reduced to $2,500, unless they elected coverage in the amount of $10,000 and elected to pay the higher premium. The letter advised the retirees they could change their election up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of the DSGI, maintains benefits data for the People First/Division of State Group Insurance. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and mailing addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. Mr. Waller created the file, prepared in July 2006, to use in a "mail merge," to send all retirees a copy of the letter dated July 31, 2006. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record that he maintained. In July 2006, the address of record for Mr. Adkins was 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207, and was included in the file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and on July 3, 2006, delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockeridge. Thomas Lockeridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of the DSGI. The DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes to mail the letter of July 31, 2006, to all retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the print shop of the DSGI, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing names and addresses of retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters dated July 31, 2006, in envelopes addressed to each retiree who carried life insurance at the time, were delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen. The State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Adkins at the Belair address. The return address on the envelope containing the letter was the Division of State Group Insurance, 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 215, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0949. The letter was not returned to the Division. The letters that were returned to the DSGI were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of the DSGI. Each letter that was returned to the Division of State Group Insurance was handled in one of two ways: a) if the envelope showed a different address on a yellow sticker applied by the US Postal Service (USPS), the letter was re-mailed to that address; b) if the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of the Division of Retirement was made, a copy of the print screen showing the address in the Retirement database was made, if different from that on the database of the Division of State Group Insurance, and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the Division of Retirement database. A copy of each Retirement screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. For every person whose letter was returned, and for which there was not another address, there would have been a Retirement print screen. The absence of a Retirement print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. There is no retirement print screen for Mr. Adkins, indicating that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to the DSGI. DMS has contracted with Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an on-line system known as “People First.” Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES). When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys People First System. People First became the system of record for the DSGI beginning January 1, 2005. People First and the Division of Retirement do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. Once a year the DSGI must hold Open Enrollment for the health program. § 110.123(3)(h)5, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 60P-1.003(16). Open Enrollment is the period designated by the DMS during which time eligible persons may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, the DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period, for the 2007 Plan Year, ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During open enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending open enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Adkins’s Open Enrollment Package to the 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 address, on September 3, 2006. The Open Enrollment Package for Plan Year 2007 was mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class postage paid. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins, for 2006 Open Enrollment, was not returned to People First. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Adkins’s 2007 Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of the DSGI; "Information of Note"; a Privacy Notice; Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and a 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included the following statement: Retiree Life Insurance For Plan Year 2007, those currently enrolled with retiree life insurance may elect to retain the current $4.20 premium for a benefit of $2,500, retain the current benefit of $10,000 for a premium of $35.79, or cancel coverage. If no change is made during open enrollment, participation will continue at the $4.20 premium level. Neither Mr. Adkins nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000.00 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 and 2007. Because the election was not made, at the death of Mr. Adkins, the benefit paid to the Petitioner was $2,500.00. Prior to January 1, 2007, the Life Insurance Trust Fund was used to augment the premiums paid by retirees for life insurance. The premium paid by the retirees did not support a $10,000 coverage level. In year 2006, the DSGI determined that the money in the life insurance trust fund, used to augment the retiree’s benefits from years 2000 through 2007, would not be available after 2007. Beginning January 1, 2007, the change in life insurance coverage was made because the funds in the Life Insurance Trust Fund were no longer available to augment the premium payment required to maintain a benefit level of $10,000.00, for a payment of $4.20 per month by the retirees. In 2006, the DSGI determined that the then-current life insurance premium of $4.20 would support a benefit of $2,500, and that the $10,000 benefits would cost $35.79. The notices provided by the July 31, 2006, letter and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package were sufficient notices of the increase in premium in that they provided a reasonable opportunity within which to make a selection of the level of coverage. On December 30, 1997, the Division of Retirement received a written notice of change of address for Mr. Adkins. The new address was 217 Skye Dr. W, Jacksonville, Florida 32221. Although Mr. Adkins had changed his address with the Division of Retirement, he did not notify the DSGI. A change of address with one division does not automatically change addresses in the other. The two divisions have different databases. During no time relevant to these proceedings have the two divisions shared databases. The DSGI, through People First, used the database of the Division of Retirement to send the 2004 Benefits Statement as an experiment to determine whether DSGI undeliverable returns would decrease. The same database was also used for the mailing of the letter dated September 2, 2003. However, neither DSGI nor People First changed its database after the 2004 Benefits Statement was sent and subsequent information was mailed to the DSGI address of record, based upon the COPES system. Therefore, the letter dated July 31, 2006, and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package for the Plan Year 2007, were mailed to the same Belair address, the address of record. A change of address for Mr. Adkins was not made in the database of the DSGI until December 1, 2008, when People First was provided a change of address. The only change of address that the Petitioner has alleged, was the one provided by Mr. Adkins to the Division of Retirement (only) in 1997.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Justina Mullennix 1217 Skye Drive West Jacksonville, Florida 32221 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's license or eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined because of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and whether Respondent should be denied a resident license to represent various insurance companies in this state because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Michael Eugene Best was either licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a health insurance agent in the State of Florida, and was engaged in the sale and brokerage of insurance, doing business as M. E. Best Investments. The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for the monitoring and regulation of the insurance business in this state. Ms. Dorothy Clark, a 73 year old woman, has known and done business with Mr. Best in the insurance area for approximately ten years. In August, 1988, she met with him to discuss her possible purchase of some kind of insurance. She cannot recall what kind of insurance it was. She gave him some money to pay for the insurance in question, which was to be procured from some insurance company, the name of which she could not initially remember, but subsequently recalled to be American Sun Life Insurance Company. The premium payment which she gave to Mr. Best was in the amount of $1,200.00, but she cannot recall whether he was obliged to use that money for the purchase of insurance from that particular company, or whether he had the option to place the insurance with another company. To the best of her limited recollection, Mr. Best did get a policy for her from American Sun Life Insurance Company, but she cannot recall if she kept that policy or if it was changed to another company. She does not recall requesting him to change companies, however, but does recall that she ultimately received a policy issued by United American Life Insurance Company and that Mr. Best was the agent who procured it for her. At hearing she denied ever attempting to cancel the United American policy though she claims she did not want it. She claims that she never received a refund check from United American, however, a check payable to her in the amount of $799.90 was issued to her by that company with address shown as her home of record. The check bears what purports to be her endorsement on the back thereof, followed by the endorsement of Mr. Best's company, but at first she claimed she did not place it there. When shown the check at the hearing, however, she admitted the signature on the endorsement was hers and that she most likely signed it. This check was issued as a result of her unremembered direction to Mr. Best to cancel the policy. She claims she did not authorize Mr. Best to take the money it represented and use it for his purposes. She claims that the check was subsequently deposited by her to her account and that Mr. Best never got possession of it or the money. This is patently wrong, however, inasmuch as Mr. Best admits that he did have the check and placed his company's endorsement on it. He subsequently used the check, with her agreement, to apply toward a policy with another company, and to his recollection, she voluntarily endorsed the check to him. Ms. Clark also purchased a $30,000.00 annuity policy through Mr. Best with another company, the name of which she cannot recall, at about the same time as the first policy mentioned herein. To get this policy she issued a check to Mr. Best in the amount of $30,000.00. When the policy was issued, she requested that it be cancel led because by the time she received it, she had reconsidered and determined that she did not want it. She notified Mr. Best of her desires that the policy be cancelled, but claims she never communicated directly with the company. The company has a letter reputedly from her, however, which complains of Respondent's purported trickery and deceit. It is found that this latter letter was prepared for her signature by someone else. When Ms. Clark told Mr. Best she did not want the policy, and requested him to cancel it, he asked her to wait awhile, for some reason which was unclear to her. Instead, she indicated to him then that she did not want to do so but wanted her money back. Some time after this discussion, but before the policy was cancelled, Mr. Best came to see her and though she cannot recall if he got her to sign anything, she identified her signature on a letter to the company which had issued the annuity policy in question , which indicated that she was satisfied with the policy and withdrawing her request to cancel. She recalls Mr. Best requesting that she sign the letter, but cannot recall what he said at the time. As she remembers, he appeared normal when he came to see her, and she voluntarily signed the letter of her own free will. It is obvious, however, that Ms. Clark did not understand what was being said to her or what she was signing because, she claims, she still wanted the policy cancelled. Her recollection of the incident is shaky - and unsure. She cannot recall if Mr. Best made her sign the letter, and she cannot recall where she signed it. It may have been at her home or at some other location, but she does not know for certain. In addition, she cannot recall if the letter was typed when she signed it, or if the paper was blank. Though she contends Mr. Best tried to keep her from cancelling this annuity policy, at this time she cannot recall what he told her; what reasons he gave her; or why he wanted her to wait. Whenever she dealt with Mr. Best, he was not rude to her. She did not feel she was being forced by him to take out any insurance from him or to do any of the things or sign any of the documentation that she did. Ms. Clark filed the complaint against Mr. Best because she was told by someone that he had forged her name on a check. At the time she signed the complaint, and at the time of the hearing, she did not know whether he did it or not, nor does she know which check he is supposed to have forged. In fact, Ms. Clark finds it difficult to recall much of what had happened and is not sure of any of the facts to which she testified. She does know, and it is found, that all the money she paid to Mr. Best was reimbursed to her and she has lost nothing as a result of her dealing with him. Ms. Clark recalls that about this time, upon the advice of her attorney, Mr. Kanetsky, she engaged in dealings with another insurance agent who advised her to cancel the annuity policy and, in fact, wrote the letter of cancellation to the insurance company for her. Mr. Kanetsky, an attorney practicing in Venice, Florida, has worked with Ms. Clark for approximately ten years, primarily in the area of estate planning for her and her sister. Over the years, he has discussed with Ms. Clark various insurance policies and other financial products, and is aware of the insurance dealings involved in this case which he learned about from his discussions with his client. He claims that in August or September, 1988, Ms. Clark called his office and solicited advice from him as to how she could get rid of an insurance policy she did not want. He advised her to come in with all her papers to discuss it and at their first meeting, found that she had purchased the $30,000.00 annuity on the life of a niece, and also a health policy, from Respondent. The annuity policy was a single premium annuity, and the health policy had a $1,200.00 premium, for both of which, she had written checks. During this discussion Ms. Clark was quite sure that she did not want to keep the annuity policy. She was somewhat confused about the health policy, but was also satisfied that she didn't want it, though she could not elaborate why. Due to Ms. Clark's conditions, both financial and otherwise, Mr. Kanetsky felt she would be better off in a liquid position rather than having such a large annuity outstanding, and since she apparently wanted to cancel both policies, he agreed to help her. To do so, he first contacted an individual in the insurance business who was aware of Mr. Best and his operation. Upon advice of this individual, Mr. Kanetsky then contacted the insurance company on which the annuity policy had been written and requested that it be cancelled. Mr. Kanetsky also referred Ms. Clark to another insurance agent to get the health policy cancelled and a new policy issued. He also contacted Mr. Best to have him refund the $400.20 difference between the $1,200.00 which Ms. Clark had paid in as a premium on the health policy, and the $799.80 which had been refunded to her by the company when the first policy was cancelled. There is some misunderstanding as to how that first $799.80 check was handled. On its face, the check reflects it was sent to Ms. Clark who, in turn, endorsed it over to Mr. Best to be applied toward another policy. Mr. Kanetsky, on the other hand, indicates the check, though addressed to Ms. Clark, was actually sent to Mr. Best, who had Ms. Clark endorse it and who applied it to another policy. In any event, since Ms. Clark wanted that policy cancel led and apparently intended to do no further business with Mr. Best, Mr. Kanetsky requested that Best refund all monies paid. Mr. Best immediately issued his check for $400.20. The insurance company, apparently concluding it had sent the first check to Mr. Best by mistake, issued another check to Ms. Clark in the amount of $799.80, which represents the actual premium cost, with the balance being the agent's legitimate commission. Since Mr. Best had already forwarded his check for $799.80, when the second insurance company check was received it was immediately refunded to Mr. Best. The $30,000.00 paid in for the annuity policy was refunded to Ms. Clark directly by the insurance company. Mr. Kanetsky contends that notwithstanding he had written to Mr. Best to advise him to stay away from Ms. Clark, there is some indication that Best thereafter came to Ms. Clark's residence to discuss the annuity policy with her. Mr. Best does not deny having gone to Ms. Clark's home on several occasions; once to talk to her about the health and accident policy, and another time, to talk about the annuity. In both cases, however, this is a standard practice in the insurance industry, suggested by the company, to attempt to "conserve" the business by making a follow-up call in an effort to dissuade a policy holder from cancelling. It is found that no improper pressure was applied by Mr. Best in his efforts to conserve his sales. Over his years of experience with Ms. Clark, Mr. Kanetsky has found that she confuses easily, and though she is competent, she is extremely limited in business experience and understanding. She does not have a guardian of her property, but is clearly not equipped emotionally to handle many of her financial affairs. It is found that her recollection of the incidents in question here is so poor as to render her testimony almost irrelevant and without merit, and though she is quite sure she did not want the insurance she bought, and attempted to cancel it, she is totally unsure of the circumstances surrounding her relationship with Respondent and the details of any conversations and transactions she may have had with him. Consequently, her testimony, the only direct testimony regarding the issue of what transpired between her and Mr. Best, is, for all purposes here, worthless. Mr. Best denies threatening Ms. Clark or attempting to coerce her into purchasing insurance from him. When he saw her in August, 1988, it was the first time he had seen her for a while and had, in fact, forgotten about her until she came into his office to file a claim. At that point, he made an appointment with her for a review of her policy status. At that time Ms. Clark had no Medicare coverage, (she does now), and he offered to attempt to get her medical coverage, to which she agreed. She wrote a check for a policy to be issued by American Sun Life Insurance Company which, subsequently, rejected her. When the rejection came through, Mr. Best immediately notified her of that fact and told her then he would convert to another company, to which she agreed. Mr. Best is satisfied Ms. Clark understood he would apply the refund check he received from American Sun to the second policy issued by United American Life, and he did this. She thereafter cancelled that policy. After Mr. Best received notice of the cancellation, he went to her home to explain everything to her. At no time, however, did he threaten her, a fact to which she agrees. He claims she had received the initial refund from united American for $799.80, which she agreed he could apply toward a policy with another company, and she voluntarily endorsed the check over to him. She also cancelled this second policy. With regard to the annuity policy, when she notified the company that she was cancelling it, he received notice of this from the home office which suggested he do what he could to conserve the business. When he went to see her about it, she agreed, he claims, that she would keep the policy. At that time he wrote out, by hand, a note to be signed by her indicating her satisfaction with the policy and her desire it be maintained. When the company thereafter indicated it preferred a typed statement to that effect, he went to her with a typed notice which said the same thing, and which Ms. Clark signed. No threats were made, and Ms. Clark agrees to this. Mr. Best also sold an insurance policy to an Ann Ward, which she cancelled for a reason totally unrelated to the Respondent. When Mr. Best found out she had cancelled the policy, he went to see her to inquire as to her reasons. At that time, as in all her dealings with him over a period of time, he was not, and she has never found him to be, overbearing, unprofessional, or coercive. In all their transactions together, he has always fully explained his product, and on the basis of their relationship, she would be happy to deal with him again. When Ms. Ward cancelled her policy, the company wrote to Mr. Best and advised him of this fact and that he must refund a portion of the premium which it had paid to him as a commission. When he received this letter, he called the company and authorized it to withhold from the amount owed to him for renewal commissions, any amount the company claimed as reimbursement. He claims to have believed this procedure, a standard action within the industry, satisfied his obligation to the company. He was, therefore, quite surprised when the company complained and he immediately wrote a check to the company to cover the balance due it which is now paid in full. However, the evidence of record shows he was sent several notices of delinquency, even several for the balance after he authorized the company to take his earned commissions, without his taking any action and the company ultimately, on December 22, 1988, terminated his agency. His failure to pay over is found to be more negligent than willful, however. Mr. Best has been in the insurance business since 1979 and claims he has had no prior administrative complaints filed against him since that time. The Department showed none.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint relating to the Respondent, Michael Eugene Best, be dismissed; and that as to Count III, he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Best's applications to represent World Insurance Company, Travellers Life Insurance Company, and American Integrity Insurance Company be denied, such denial to be without prejudice to re-filing of the applications at a later time to be set by the Department. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, as to all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. FOR THE PETITIONER; 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. -10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15.&16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted and incorporated herein, with the understanding that the failure to deal with American Sun Life was not due to any misconduct of Respondent but because of the Company's rejection of Ms. Clark. 18.-20. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 21.-24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25.-27. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 28.-31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32.&34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Christopher Anderson, III, Esquire Office of Legal Services Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Michael E. Sweeting, Esquire Pflaum, Dannheisser and Sweeting, P. A. 100 Wallace Avenue, Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
